The results were “really impressive” and the study was “hailed?” Shameful reporting.

In the end, deaths from any cause were not even statistically different between the diet groups (118, 116 and 114 per 1000 person-yr for the Med diet with EVOO, Med diet with nuts, and the control diet, respectively). Chartsmanship and cherry picking the data don’t make the results impressive. Credible reporting would have said this study found null results.

Reporting like this will have the same effect blaming all heart attacks on cholesterol did–when 30 year old people who followed the diet end up in the ER with a heart attack, the claim loses credibility.

The comments here reflect knowledge outside the article and bias. “More research needed” was NOT the key finding. There were no stats in the article such as Sandjfs reports. No way of identifying ‘cherry-picking.’ It seems the comments carry skepticism past a level of functionality (or reflect some special knowledge not available to those just reading the article.).

Gamecock: Thank you for the link. There are several interesting comments in the actual research study (link in the Dean Ornish article). I think I would agree that “more research was needed” is pretty much what it says. The results of this study are pretty narrow.